I have previously written two articles about my views on the credibility of the existence and historicity of Jesus of Nazareth:
In this article I would like to address some of the views by skeptics and atheists on the subject in question.
You see, I have seen many outspoken atheist activists eg. on YouTube state that the historicity of Jesus is at the same level as those of, for example, Julius Caesar, Plato and Alexander the Great. They consider the historicity of Jesus an almost indisputable fact, and the only question is how many of the claims written about him are actually true.
This genuinely baffles me. I don't have an objection to them believing that Jesus of Nazareth, who the Christian scriptures talk about, actually existed as a real person. I do have an objection, however, to elevating this certainty to the same level as those other historic figures such as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. There might be some arguments to be made for the historicity of Jesus, but the level of evidence for this in no way, shape or form comes even close to that of the historicity of those other people.
There is an overwhelming amount of surviving physical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. And this is not evidence from centuries after his death, but contemporary evidence. Statues, coins, monuments, inscriptions in those monuments, contemporary written accounts by numerous contemporary authors, both Roman and foreign. All of which can be traced with a high degree of reliability to being contemporary, ie. created when Julius Caesar was alive. We even have surviving texts written by Julius Caesar himself.
The same is true for Alexander the Great: There is overwhelming contemporary evidence of his existence that has survived to this day, including coins, buildings, monuments and contemporary writings by domestic and foreign authors.
In contrast, there is no contemporary evidence of any kind for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. None. No statues, no coins, no monuments, no works by the man himself, no writings about him, either Christian or non-Christian. There are no Roman documents about the man they allegedly executed (at least none that has survived), nor even mention or references to any such documents anywhere. There are no contemporary accounts of his life or teachings, written during his lifetime.
The earliest sources that we have that mention him in any way, shape or form are either the original source for the Gospels (as it's commonly accepted that either none or at most one of the Gospels is original, the others are just rewritings of the same story) or the letters of Paul, both of which were written many decades after the alleged death of the man. The latter are more reliable because they can be traced better to a particular author, but they were written by a person who, by his own words, never met Jesus, never even saw him in person, and only had second-hand accounts (if even that). Non-Christian sources are much more recent than that, written about a century later by authors who were born after the alleged death of Jesus.
The amount of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus is absolutely abysmal. As in none. This is quite in contrast to the amount of physical contemporary evidence for eg. Julius Caesar.
It is, thus, incomprehensible why so many skeptics consider the certainty for the historicity of Jesus to be on the same level as that of those other people.
Jesus might have actually been a real person, but the quality of evidence for this is in no way even close to be reliable, not even close to that of Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great.
No comments:
Post a Comment